Wilson v. State

• Decision Date: 25 February 1903
• Citation: 72 S.W. 862
• Parties: WILSON v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

72 S.W. 862

WILSON v. STATE.^*

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 25, 1903.

Appeal from District Court, Hill County; W. Poindexter, Judge.

J. L. Wilson was convicted of robbery, and appeals. Affirmed.

A. W. Cunningham and Spell & Phillips, for appellant. B. Y. Cummings, Asst. Co. Atty., C. F. Greenwood, Co. Atty., and Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was convicted of robbery, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of seven years. This is a companion case to cause No. 2,647, J. L. Beard v. State (decided at the present term) 71 S. W. 960.

Appellant filed a motion for continuance for want of the testimony of Jim Brown, stating that he expected to prove by said witness that on the morning of November 3, 1901, he saw prosecuting witness, Wesley Miles, on the road between defendant's house and Mt. Calm, with something looked like a bundle of clothes under his arm. To this bill the court appends the following explanation: "That this witness came into court afterwards, and in open court stated to the sheriff and county attorney that he had never seen the witness Wesley Miles on the road from Mt. Calm, either with or without a bundle of clothes, and knew nothing about the case. The court instructed the county attorney to take his affidavit to this fact, but the witness left before this was done, all of which was called to the attention of Mr. Cunningham, one of defendant's attorneys." This explanation disposed of the motion for continuance, and the court did not err in overruling the same.

Appellant introduced E. H. Ballard, and was proceeding to prove by said witness that he and defendant had worked together for a number of years, and during the years 1900 and 1901 owned and operated a self-binder in the neighborhood in which Mr. Wilson lived. The state objected to this evidence, and the court sustained the objection, making this statement: "It is immaterial what he was doing. It is admitted that his character is good, and it is immaterial whether he ran a sawmill, a thresher, a farm, or did nothing." To the exclusion of which evidence, and the language of the court, defendant excepted, because the evidence offered was material, and the language of the court sustaining it was prejudicial to defendant, and was calculated to impress the jury that defendant's good reputation and honest life were of no importance whatever in the trial of this case. There was no error in the action of the court excluding the evidence, or in the language used. The court states that the character of defendant was admitted to be good, and certainly it was then immaterial what vocation he was following.

In motion for new trial, appellant insists that the court erred in refusing to permit him to prove by 10 witnesses that his reputation for honesty and fair dealing and as a law-abiding citizen was good, because that fact, being admitted by the state, was calculated to impress the jury with the idea that the question was of no importance to defendant or injurious to the state, and therefore the admission did not have the same effect in defendant's favor that the evidence of the witnesses would have had. We do not think there is any error in this; and, for a further discussion of the matter, see Beard v. State (decided at present term), 71 S. W. 960.

After the case had proceeded to the argument, Mr. Cummings, the assistant county attorney, made a speech to the jury, of 23 minutes, in behalf of the state. At the conclusion of his argument, Mr. Cunningham, attorney for defendant, and the only attorney representing him in the case, stated to the court and jury that on account of his illness during the preceding night and his illness at that time he was unable to make any argument, and was obliged to submit the case as it was. The court then, over appellant's objections,...